http://www.engadget.com/2009/10/27/bridgestone-announces-flexible-touchscreen-color-e-reader/

"Based on a technology Bridgestone calls Quick-response Liquid Powder, the company's all-color touchscreen e-book reader is about 5.8mm thick, features a 13.1-inch touch-sensitive e-paper display (with 4,096 colors and a refresh rate of about 0.8 seconds), and some sort of unspecified mobile phone connectivity."

Wow, if that comes out next year it would be great and put a lot of trouble in the big name eReader sellers

Wow, if that comes out next year it would be great and put a lot of trouble in the big name eReader sellers

Not really. If you've followed the news lately "next year" or "starting from 2010" other parties will also introduce their color e-paper solutions.

It's just that as of now, there aren't any protohypes yet.

The contrast appears to be very low, but the refresh speed, as shown in this old video, seems good:

<object width="853" height="505"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4t0Geapt02g&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4t0Geapt02g&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="853" height="505"></embed></object>

I suspect the technology will take at least a few generations to become as good as the greyscale. I think a screen like that could be very useful for tablet PC type devices. But that is way to big for a portable reading device.

I'm concerned that the trend toward do-everything type of readers will diminish the ability to simply read books. I want a good reader, not a swiss-army-knife compromised device that does a lot of things so-so and nothing well.

I suspect the technology will take at least a few generations to become as good as the greyscale. I think a screen like that could be very useful for tablet PC type devices. But that is way to big for a portable reading device.


Agree, and I really need an A4 sized tablet for academic work, so I'm very excited to see where these devices/screens go in the next couple of years.

Looks promising as from that video this could be very think and light and still have a big screen to handle any PDF, allow easy highlighting and annotation with stylus etc.

Give it a generation or two for the tech to improve and the screen to be used in robust devices that have internet, e-mail, PDA functions etc. and we'll have some very handy devices for the business/academic crowd--and others who want a multifunction tablet type device.



I'm concerned that the trend toward do-everything type of readers will diminish the ability to simply read books. I want a good reader, not a swiss-army-knife compromised device that does a lot of things so-so and nothing well.

I don't think there's anything to worry about there. There will remain a market for simple, dedicated readers. Especially as prices come down on such devices.

Some people just want to read and don't need annotation, internet, e-mail etc. and companies will put out simple e-readers for them.

There's plenty of room in the market for dedicated readers and tablets aimed more at the business/professional/academic set who can't really replace paper with current e-readers but could with a large screen tablet.

I don't think the "jack of all trades, master of none" critique really flys any more. Tech is getting better and better and doing a lot of things well in recent years from things like the iPhone to video game consoles like the PS3 being an outstanding Blu Ray player (when past consoles were terrible DVD players) etc. etc.

They have no choice but to get better at making multifunction devices given the increasing number of people who are always on the go and thus really need good multifunction devices that are portable and let them get their work done etc. from anywhere.

The contrast appears to be very low

The current crop of engadget pictures seem to show reasonable contrast.

but you can check it out sooner at FPD International 2009 in Yokohama City, Japan, starting tomorrow. Anyone live near there?

I suspect the technology will take at least a few generations to become as good as the greyscale. I think a screen like that could be very useful for tablet PC type devices. But that is way to big for a portable reading device.

I'm concerned that the trend toward do-everything type of readers will diminish the ability to simply read books. I want a good reader, not a swiss-army-knife compromised device that does a lot of things so-so and nothing well.
I keep going back & forth on this. One the one hand I dislike the 'all-in-one' idea that if one part breaks I need to replace/return the whole thing. (I'm facing that now with a printer/scanner/fax. I've gotten the printer & fax working, but can't get the scanner to send the image to the PC. I think it's a software problem but they've told me to return it for repair which will leave me without a printer or fax, either.)

On the other hand, I like 'all-in-one' for portability. I much prefer taking my smart phone with me to read, browse the Web, listen to music, and more as opposed to carrying an eBook reader, an MP3 player, etc. Plus all their separate chargers if I'm traveling. (Have you seen the article about the UN defining a 'standard' charger for phones? I don't think it'll catch on, but it'd be nice.)

As for the size, it seems to me that there are two separate markets here. Some people are entirely in one market or the other while others straddle both markets depending on what they're doing-but I think there's definitely two markets.

W5JCK.
Jack, can't send you a PM, so I'll write here hoping you will get it.

Do you know WA5QKE, Fairfield, TX?
AJ
(Send me PM if you wish)

Well, I could read anwhere, and of course I need a cell phone, and I need my Internet connection, and I could use something to take notes with...

So I'll just carry four devices!!

No, I won't. I'll carry one device that does all of them. The Kindle does Internet access and is a reader, both at once. So, there's not much more to go. Maybe the cell phone can be separate, but there's no way I am going to carry a separate device for every function. All in one is the ONLY way things can end up.

And this color device looked a bit washed-out to me... But it confirms my prediction that color is coming a lot faster than Amazon seemed to predict. In a year, many of us will be using color devices, and I am looking forward to seeing decent pictures, tables and maps on my reader -- you know, maps where you can actually READ the locations? Photos you can actually ENJOY. That kind of thing...

Jack I am with you on a simple reader. I do not need anything but a good format and the size of font that I can read and a usb connection to a PC and I am good.
I do love the EZreader because of all the formats it will work with but I mainly use PDF and epub and sometimes mobi

Chuck

Wow! Me wants! :D


I suspect the technology will take at least a few generations to become as good as the greyscale.

I disagree. The refresh rate seems better than current grayscale ones. The contrast, the color one there's a lot of room to improve, but so far nothing tells me that grayscale images and text won't have an as good contrast as the grayscale ereaders.


Looking forward for more news about this one. :thumbsup:

I'm definately in the All-In-One camp. I want an eReader that supports color at video refresh rates and that has a flexible screen. I also want fast access to the internet. Movies, video games, books, music, custom software all on one thin, light, portable, paperpad sized device, with a week+ battery life.

Well, I could read anwhere, and of course I need a cell phone, and I need my Internet connection, and I could use something to take notes with...

So I'll just carry four devices!!

No, I won't. I'll carry one device that does all of them. The Kindle does Internet access and is a reader, both at once. So, there's not much more to go. Maybe the cell phone can be separate, but there's no way I am going to carry a separate device for every function. All in one is the ONLY way things can end up.

So, I drowned my phone a few months ago. If I had been you, I'd not been able to read and surf the net anymore (I used my PDA for that, now it would be the JE100, Mini and PDA). Or take notes (PDA again). Or listen to my MP3's (MP3 player).

Me, I'd take 4 different devices for 4 different functions any day. It would be nice if some functions were on several devices (like note taking on your phone and your reader or listening to mp3's on your phone and mp3 player, etc).

But that is way to big for a portable reading device.
.


I disagree. It would be enormously useful both for those of us looking for a large format for technical work, but would also be appealing for those looking for recreational larger-format reading materials such as magazines with photo layouts.

BTW, I'm waiting to see a device built around the Qualcomm Mirasol technology. It has very crisp color, refresh rates capable of supporting video, and a very low drain on the battery. So far they have only displayed small sized screens that use this technology, but if they start building large screen devices, well, whoohoo!

As for the size, it seems to me that there are two separate markets here. Some people are entirely in one market or the other while others straddle both markets depending on what they're doing-but I think there's definitely two markets.

Agree 100%. I'm kind of a straddler as I love my Kindle for leisure reading, but it's wortheless for work.

That said if I can get a nice tablet device that's not larger than A4, and very thin and light, I'd probably eventually scrap my leisure reader and just use the tablet for work and novels.


So, I drowned my phone a few months ago. If I had been you, I'd not been able to read and surf the net anymore (I used my PDA for that, now it would be the JE100, Mini and PDA). Or take notes (PDA again). Or listen to my MP3's (MP3 player).

Me, I'd take 4 different devices for 4 different functions any day. It would be nice if some functions were on several devices (like note taking on your phone and your reader or listening to mp3's on your phone and mp3 player, etc).

As you note later, most everyone has multiple devices that can do these functions. I can listen to my cds, or mp3s on my pc, laptop, work pc, as wel as two mp3 players. Can read on PCs etc. etc. So one could still do those things if one all in one device was broken/lost.

It's just nice to have a good, portable device that consolidates several functions together for those of us on the go all the time. It doesn't mean that's the only device we have for those functions. Just it would be our main portable device for those functions.

I disagree. It would be enormously useful both for those of us looking for a large format for technical work, but would also be appealing for those looking for recreational larger-format reading materials such as magazines with photo layouts.

Yep. That's why I could see myself scrapping my Kindle (or other small reader) for a a light tablet for leisure reading and work reading etc. It's a little less convenient for novel reading, but the benefits for magazines etc. kind of outweigh that loss for me.

But as said above, there are two markets here with some overlap. There needs to be a wide array of devices from small, dedicated readers, to thin tablets mainly for reading and annotating, to full tablet PCs so that everyone can find a device that suits their needs. Plenty of room in the market for such an array--just like with cell phones, netbooks etc.

I don't think the "jack of all trades, master of none" critique really flys any more. Tech is getting better and better and doing a lot of things well in recent years from things like the iPhone to video game consoles like the PS3 being an outstanding Blu Ray player (when past consoles were terrible DVD players) etc. etc.


The PS3 is a bad example. It is getting its butt kicked up and down the street by a focused gaming machine. Heck, it is selling as bad as the Game Cube (a pure gaming machine), and that was considered a failure.

The PSP is another example. It loses bad to the DS, which is more dedicated to gaming.

The PS3 is a bad example. It is getting its butt kicked up and down the street by a focused gaming machine. Heck, it is selling as bad as the Game Cube (a pure gaming machine), and that was considered a failure.

The PSP is another example. It loses bad to the DS, which is more dedicated to gaming.

I was talking in functionality--not sales success. But fair points. I don't have a PS3, but some friends and family do. And it's a very high rated Blu Ray player. And it has a lot of good games--though the 360 had more exclusive games that appealed to me.

But anyhow, I couldn't care less if the device I have is a sales success as long as it fits my needs.

Especially for something like a tablet device which would ideally just be based on a standard OS which would assure access to tons of software regardless of how well the specific device sells.

It would be more of a concern if it's something like a Kindle that has it's own OS, access to it's own book/app store etc. as if it doesn't sell well it's a paper weight. I probably wouldn't buy such a device for my tablet needs and wait for something that's either a sales success and clear to stick around (like the iPhone was very quickly) or based on a standard platform like Windows etc.

From Engadget's own records, Bridgestone seems to have had prototypes of flexible color epaper displays dating back to at least 2006. (http://www.engadget.com/tag/Bridgestone/)

I can't tell for sure but it doesn't look like they really have anything in the ebook space yet. Wake me up when they have a shipping product.



Well, I could read anwhere, and of course I need a cell phone, and I need my Internet connection, and I could use something to take notes with. So I'll just carry four devices!!
Gasp shudder horror shock. :whistle:

• An eReader replaces, and is just as convenient (if not more so) than the paper book(s) you'd carry instead.
• I routinely commute, and walk at least an hour a day (usually more) carrying an ereader, smartphone and a netbook. It really isn't that difficult.

The idea that "all in one is the ONLY way things can end up" is patently false. We still have dedicated fax machines, copy machines and scanners despite the ease of combining the three; we still have portable digital music players -- heck, we even still have portable radios, despite the ease of integrating those functions into PDA's and smartphones. I could go on, but the reality is that it's rare that a multifunction completely eliminates a focused device.

Dedicated readers have several advantages: better reading surface, lower power requirements, ease of use. It's a lot easier to specialize a dedicated device for something like the education market, where all-day usage is necessary, and you may not want the students to have constant Internet access, IM, text messaging and so forth during class. And for the frequent readers -- who generate a disproportionate of book revenues -- a dedicated device will be preferable for the indefinite future.

Multifunction devices can be convenient, and will clearly have a role to play. But I seriously doubt that dedicated readers will disappear overnight.

• An eReader replaces, and is just as convenient (if not more so) than the paper book(s) you'd carry instead.


I never carried paper e-books for reading before. Don't often carry my kindle around either. Leisure reading is something to do until sleepy at night thing for me.


• I routinely commute, and walk at least an hour a day (usually more) carrying an ereader, smartphone and a netbook. It really isn't that difficult.


It's doable. But I'd prefer to minimize what I have carry around daily, on business trips etc. as much as possible.



Multifunction devices can be convenient, and will clearly have a role to play. But I seriously doubt that dedicated readers will disappear overnight.

That I agree with 100%. As I said above, there's plenty of room in the market for a wide array of devices ranging from dedicated e-ink readers for people who just read and need the screen and battery life, to tablet devices for people who need to mark up larger documents, and want all the business features etc.

It's not an either or proposition. All kinds of devices can come out and thrive in particular markets.

i'm expecting this to take a few years to get right. I just bought a Kindle DX. I can wait 3 years to 2012 for a color version.

i'm expecting this to take a few years to get right. I just bought a Kindle DX. I can wait 3 years to 2012 for a color version.

I agree. I'm looking forward to the next great thing, but I think my Kindle DX will tide me over until it gets here.

Hmm, if it actually comes out in 2010 and at an affordable price it might just be very attractive. Sounds like it'd be a great reader for viewing my collection of academic and gaming pdfs.

Has anyone figured out what is the resolution of this screen?

I do not see any real progress here. Dark colors look bad.
Ring me when there is a new screen technology with a much improved contrast!
First I want white, not grey. Then colors.

The contrast appears to be very low, but the refresh speed, as shown in this old video, seems good:


That is what I expected, very low contrast. I did not expect this technology (thin flexible touch colour device) to be in the marketplace till like 2012 or something!

For them to get this to market so quickly I figured yes it must have some issues, they can't be that far ahead of other manufacturers. For me, the ultimate device is the one shown in movies like mission impossible (I think it's that movie). Basically a transparent paper thin LCD touch device which can be folded to fit in your pocket and can do everything, I suspect in the real world it would need nano technology lol

From Engadget's own records, Bridgestone seems to have had prototypes of flexible color epaper displays dating back to at least 2006. (http://www.engadget.com/tag/Bridgestone/)

I can't tell for sure but it doesn't look like they really have anything in the ebook space yet. Wake me up when they have a shipping product.



It does say :-

*Trials begin at the Kansai Urban Banking Corp early next year, but you can check it out sooner at FPD International 2009 in Yokohama City, Japan, starting tomorrow.*

Doesn't that mean they DO have devices working and ready enough for real world use? Amazon did some trials with their large screen thingy with academics and students, and generally got a thumbs down due to the clunkiness and mono screens. This sounds as if it could fit quite neatly into that potentially very large niche when/if perfected. Sounds good to me. Plus if these touch colour screens (or any other pending technologies) take off they could, I think, dominate (depending on price) which might well push down the prices of less desirable mono eink devices, which also sounds good to me.

I am of course guessing.

[edit]
Sorry, just realised you meant a product actually for sale. It does look like they are close to that though.

With QUE clearly aimed for business (meaning: expensive), this is my only hope.

i'm expecting this to take a few years to get right. I just bought a Kindle DX. I can wait 3 years to 2012 for a color version.

But the world is coming to an end in 2012 (according to the Mayan calendar). :rolleyes:

with 4,096 colors

Wow, I just had a flashback to over 30 years ago when the original Amiga 1000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_1000) had support for this many colors using HAM mode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hold-And-Modify). :rolleyes:

Let's hope this is a good start to full color support... :fingersx:

Comics! That's was this is for. Imagine being able to take an entire collection of, for example, Asterix & Co. :D

at worst, this will hopefully light fires under the other panel mfgs...as well as the controller and firmware developers.

I used to think an all in one would be ideal but now that I have my Sony reader I disagree. I like that it is compact with a leather book cover. It does its job very well, pages are easy to turn with a simple screen swipe and it feels like a book! I dont need color because that means i will read less books and more magazines and other printed media. Jonesing for the next tech when you are happy with what you have is not a good thing :)

I like but I'm the point where I think if I want pdfs and comics, something like the Archos 9 is about is good as a jack of all trades can get. Keep a true ereader close.

I never carried paper e-books for reading before.Don't get me started on those darn new-fangled paper e-books!! Metal and plastic was good enough for me and by jiminy they're good enough for my kids as well! :rofl:


But seriously, the one thing I'd like to know here is resolution. Colour on a reflective display requires the use of four cells for each pixel (typically RGB and white) meaning that the resolution is half that of the base matrix. Thus a 166dpi screen which is 'good enough' becomes 83dpi, which definitely isn't sufficient quality for rendering high quality text. Increasing the size of the display just multiplies the manufacturing and quality control problems involved.

I'd love to be proved wrong, but I suspect this will prove to be a 70-80 dpi device more suitable for web browsing than reading large amounts of text.

Comics! That's was this is for. Imagine being able to take an entire collection of, for example, Asterix & Co. :D

My thought too! And what to think about that NG collection?

Trying to think why the bending is a good thing other than just something to show. Maybe it won't break as quickly if sat upon?

Yeah, durability seems to be the main advantage to a flexible screen vs. the fragile glass e-ink screens.

I like but I'm the point where I think if I want pdfs and comics, something like the Archos 9 is about is good as a jack of all trades can get. Keep a true ereader close.

Ya know...I really...no I mean REALLY!!, would never have come across that danged Archos 9!! hahahaha...I am with ya though...should I be worried if it keeps showing up in my dreams? :eek:

But the A9 with Win7 and a Pocketbook 360 would make me a happy camper...if I could live with the current eink display reading indoor's under normal lighting.

Trying to think why the bending is a good thing other than just something to show. Maybe it won't break as quickly if sat upon?
Also, although this is just the first 'baby step' towards the end result, a fully flexible screen might solve the 'large screen' vs 'pocket-size' device. Think of a eReader you can carry in your shirt pocket where you have your choice of screen sizes-small, for 'cozy' reading or a rolled-up/folded-up screen you can pull out for full-size (or even larger) display.

I suspect projected display technology (e.g. holographic displays) will become practical before the flexible display reaches that point, but it's nice that we don't have to bet the future on just one technology.

Trying to think why the bending is a good thing other than just something to show. Maybe it won't break as quickly if sat upon?

Durability. If something gives and flexes, it is less likely to break.

I suspect projected display technology (e.g. holographic displays) will become practical before the flexible display reaches that point, but it's nice that we don't have to bet the future on just one technology.

And I don't see how holographic displays will ever be anything more than a science fiction fantasy. Light and lasers simply do not work that way.

From the video on the first page, it is clear they are using an LCD screen without backlight on a white background.
The reason of low contrast is the polarization filters.
This is something PixelQi is fixing in their screens.
The color mode faces the same issues as PiQi's screens, in that the colors are washed out.

The resolution is higher than ebook readers, most likely greater than 1024x720 pix, but I have no concrete numbers.

I find a device like this the right size to read most pdf files available.

I also think that because the use of a regular TFT screen on a plastic layer (to make it bendable) brings with itself more issues (like scratches on the plastic, breaking pixels, plastic layers splitting after a while, ...).
All reasons why we probably won't see a device like this soon in the stores.

The resolution is higher than ebook readers, most likely greater than 1024x720 pix, but I have no concrete numbers.

It's a 13.1" screen and seems to be 16:9 aspect ratio.

For that to have a resolution of 170dpi, which is comparable to current eInk readers, it would have to be at least 1941x1091.

Unlikely.

LCD is a very mature technology will well-tuned manufacturing processes and you can't get a 13" LCD that's over 1440x900. It's larger than the top end of current eInk displays, but larger invariably translates into lower dpi resolution because size multiplies the difficulties in quality control. And in terms of the readability of text, it's the dpi that counts, not the total pixel count.

@Charleski:
If it is 16/9 perhaps it uses a 1280x720 screen; or a 1024x600 screen like a netbook.
But the way I see it, the screen looks to be more like a 8:5 ratio. A resolution like 1280x800 seems more likeable...

It's good for magazines too. I have 3 magazine subscriptions, I don't read the paper since I read the news on the internet. But I do get People, Tennis, and Essence magazines at home. I have no e-subscriptions since I prefer my magazines in color. It would be great for someone to come up with a 13 inch color screen just for magazines. Maybe it could be like a cell phone deal, a deep discount for a 2 year subscriptions of several magazines.

And I don't see how holographic displays will ever be anything more than a science fiction fantasy. Light and lasers simply do not work that way.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/holographic.television/index.html says it's been achieved in the laboratory. Which is a long way from being practical, but it does refute your statement that 'light and lasers simply do not work that way'. Of course maybe CNN got it wrong? I do recall the news stories about cold fusion a few years ago, but until proven otherwise I'll take CNN's reports over your opinions.

@Charleski:
But the way I see it, the screen looks to be more like a 8:5 ratio. A resolution like 1280x800 seems more likeable...
Which gives it a resolution of 115dpi, no better than a run-of-the-mill LCD, and inadequate to the task of displaying arbitrary fonts properly at small sizes. An LCD running ClearType and using fonts that have been specifically and extensively tuned would look a lot better, so if you really need a large 13" display you'd be better-off getting an LCD-based tablet PC running Vista or Win7.

The whole point of eReaders is to make text look good. Colour and video may be desirable, but if they cause the text quality to be sacrificed then they're useless.

I'm sure there are several applications that can justify designing a very low-power mid-res display that can do video, but they don't include eReaders.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/10/06/holographic.television/index.html says it's been achieved in the laboratory. Which is a long way from being practical, but it does refute your statement that 'light and lasers simply do not work that way'. Of course maybe CNN got it wrong? I do recall the news stories about cold fusion a few years ago, but until proven otherwise I'll take CNN's reports over your opinions.

Reports about science and technology from the general media almost always get things wrong-- sometimes only a few small things, sometimes major blunders. In every field of science in which I have some passing familiarity, I find mistakes in almost every article written in popular media by general reporters. I'm confident that they are just as mistaken in areas that I don't know enough to notice them.

This is how science reporting works:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623

A laser is a tight beam of light. You do not see that beam unless it is passing through a medium that scatters some of that light. Think of the very common red laser pointers-- you see the dot where the laser beam touches a surface, you do not see the path of the beam through air unless there is smoke, steam, or some other type of fine particles suspended in the air. Now, with much more powerful red lasers and with somewhat more powerful green and blue lasers (wavelengths the eye is more sensitive to) and if the room is pretty dark, you can make out a beam. You have to have DAMN powerful lasers to make beams strongly visible in normal daytime lighting. I'm talking about lasers that burn skin and boil eyeballs with a moment's contact.

And even then, we are talking about a beam-- a beam which will continue on into infinity until it has lots it's focus too far to be visible. Not a volume pixel. The ability to make a laser show up as a single pixel in a volume of open air, not showing up as a beam before or afterward, is a FANTASY. You will never, ever, ever have any type of display that displays real, 3-dimensional images in open air. It is not how light physics works. There are ways to make things that look kinda-sorta like how we expect a hologram to look, but they involve rotating mirrors and bulky equipment-- nothing that you will ever have in a flat device that will fit in your pocket.

Here's an interesting discussion:

http://holography.ning.com/profiles/blogs/people-seem-to-be-lovin-this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holograms

It's good for magazines too. I have 3 magazine subscriptions, I don't read the paper since I read the news on the internet. But I do get People, Tennis, and Essence magazines at home. I have no e-subscriptions since I prefer my magazines in color. It would be great for someone to come up with a 13 inch color screen just for magazines. Maybe it could be like a cell phone deal, a deep discount for a 2 year subscriptions of several magazines.

I wouldn't expect too much from the colors though!

Which gives it a resolution of 115dpi, no better than a run-of-the-mill LCD, and inadequate to the task of displaying arbitrary fonts properly at small sizes. An LCD running ClearType and using fonts that have been specifically and extensively tuned would look a lot better, so if you really need a large 13" display you'd be better-off getting an LCD-based tablet PC running Vista or Win7.

The whole point of eReaders is to make text look good. Colour and video may be desirable, but if they cause the text quality to be sacrificed then they're useless.

I'm sure there are several applications that can justify designing a very low-power mid-res display that can do video, but they don't include eReaders.

It IS a laptop LCD screen. But don't forget that in B&W mode these LCD's would have a resolution of about 2400x1280,which is more than adequate for reading ebooks.
Seehere for details:
http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?p=452865#post452865
(there's another thread about colors and pixels (used as B&W on a reflective background) too which I can't find right now..)

Also LCD screens do not give a good B&W ratio. Most of the text will be dark grey/green to dark yellow/light grey.

From the video on the first page, it is clear they are using an LCD screen without backlight on a white background.
The reason of low contrast is the polarization filters.
This is something PixelQi is fixing in their screens.
The color mode faces the same issues as PiQi's screens, in that the colors are washed out.

The description Bridgestone gave suggests that their technology is on electrophoretics. And if you look at the color eInk prototypes they're also dark and washed out. Which makes sense since the screens are already "gray", and color filters have an unfortunate effect of eating light.

As for Pixel Qi, my limited understanding is that they placed the color filters below the reflective element. Which makes the reflective mode essentially black and white. Saturation is entirely dependent on the intensity of the backlight relative to ambient lighting.

As for Pixel Qi, my limited understanding is that they placed the color filters below the reflective element. Which makes the reflective mode essentially black and white. Saturation is entirely dependent on the intensity of the backlight relative to ambient lighting.

PixelQi uses the same basics as an LCD. They have a layer of reflective white plastic, pol.filter, color layers, and the other pol filter.

They do use a very transparent type of polarization filter; or exactly how they get their screens so light I don't know.

The saturation effects of the colors follows the same pattern as a laptop with glossy screen, set to low backlight, in an outside environment (under sunlight); but minus the green-greyish color LCD's have.

It IS a laptop LCD screen.Er, no. It's a variant of electrophoretics: http://www2.bridgestone-dp.jp/global/adv-materials/QR-LPD/overview.html

Aha, just found some concrete specs on their site. They list res for their monochrome models and it's around 150dpi.

Reports about science and technology from the general media almost always get things wrong-- sometimes only a few small things, sometimes major blunders.
As I pointed out. Sometimes it's the reporter who doesn't really understand the science & sometimes it's the scientist making false claims. But the claim is that it's been achieved-nobody who knows what they're talking about denies that it can, theoretically, be done.

This is how science reporting works:

http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623
Irrelevant. The link is satire & has no relationship to reality.

A laser is a tight beam of light. You do not see that beam unless it is passing through a medium that scatters some of that light.
You mean like an interference pattern? Which is what creates a hologram? Sorry, that's also satire because you inadvertently explained how it works-while trying to explain why it wouldn't work.

So once it passes thru the interference pattern we're no longer talking about a beam. And you're correct that current technology requires bulky equipment-that's one of the reasons why it's still in the labs. (And they don't really need rotating mirrors, but it's easier. If I remember correctly, what they need is two beams interfering with each other in order to produce the interference pattern we see as an image. (And it won't be a single pixel unless that's the image you want to produce. The basic nature of a hologram, as an interference pattern in light, requires that they 'produce' the entire image rather than a portion of it.) The mirrors & prisms are currently used to 'split' a single beam into two synchronized beams, then bring them back together to produce that interference pattern.

Will it ever be miniaturized enough to fit into a pocket-sized device? I don't know. It's certain that it theoretically can be, but that theoretical device requires all sorts of technology that is also still theory. It's possible the human race will die out before this proves true. It's possible some other technology will be developed to do essentially the same thing before this proves true. And it's possible that there won't ever be enough 'need' for this that people will continue to develop it. But it's also definitely true that it is possible. Whether or not that possibility will ever become reality is something else.

Irrelevant. The link is satire & has no relationship to reality.


I'm sorry-- I was unaware that your absence of a sense of humor matched your absence of scientific knowledge.

So once it passes thru the interference pattern we're no longer talking about a beam. And you're correct that current technology requires bulky equipment-that's one of the reasons why it's still in the labs.


Holograms are not "still in the lab." You have holograms on your credit cards. You can make holograms at home. You used could buy kits on making holograms at home, including the lasers, mirrors, and holographic film, but I believe a few years ago "they" stopped making the film. Just like all real holograms are-- a static image permanently stored on a holographic film or a solid substrate. Not projected into the air. What the CNN article was about is that someone has developed a medium for storing holograms that can be erased and rewritten. But no matter if they did get the erase time and the rewrite time so fast that it can produce full-motion video, it will still be just an image embedded in the surface of the material like that little bird on your credit card. It will not float above a surface like Princess Leia. That is fantasy, not reality.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram1.htm

I see that kits are still available, and cheaper than when I first looked at them maybe 10 years ago:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hologram+kit&aq=f&aqi=g2&oq=&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b

PixelQi uses the same basics as an LCD. They have a layer of reflective white plastic, pol.filter, color layers, and the other pol filter.

They do use a very transparent type of polarization filter; or exactly how they get their screens so light I don't know.

The saturation effects of the colors follows the same pattern as a laptop with glossy screen, set to low backlight, in an outside environment (under sunlight); but minus the green-greyish color LCD's have.

I know Pixel Qi uses LCD. My point was that one of the ways they improved brightness was by not trying to give the reflective mode color. Color filters and reflective screens have never been great bedfellows.

If you're interested, you can read the patent filed by May Lou Jepsen here (warning: PDF) (http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20080117346.pdf).

I'm sorry-- I was unaware that your absence of a sense of humor matched your absence of scientific knowledge.
Sense of humor has nothing to do with it-I just don't think false 'information' has any place in a rational discussion, whether intended as humor or not.
Holograms are not "still in the lab." You have holograms on your credit cards. You can make holograms at home. You used could buy kits on making holograms at home, including the lasers, mirrors, and holographic film, but I believe a few years ago "they" stopped making the film. Just like all real holograms are-- a static image permanently stored on a holographic film or a solid substrate. Not projected into the air. What the CNN article was about is that someone has developed a medium for storing holograms that can be erased and rewritten. But no matter if they did get the erase time and the rewrite time so fast that it can produce full-motion video, it will still be just an image embedded in the surface of the material like that little bird on your credit card. It will not float above a surface like Princess Leia. That is fantasy, not reality.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/hologram1.htm

I see that kits are still available, and cheaper than when I first looked at them maybe 10 years ago:

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=hologram+kit&aq=f&aqi=g2&oq=&fp=8ec9ea851cee2c5b
I guess we're in the realm of competing experts then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holography talks about the 3-D holograms, which are the *original* holograms. I'm not a lexicographer so maybe Gresham's law applies here, but I tend to keep the original meanings for words. And by that meaning, the pictures on credit cards, etc. are hot holograms.

But I do see that your references call them holograms, so I guess at this point I'll just note that there appear to be two different meanings for the word.

As to how much science I know, I at least know enough to tell that something which has been demonstrated in the laboratory, regardless of the name that's applied to it, is not fantasy.

As to how much science I know, I at least know enough to tell that something which has been demonstrated in the laboratory, regardless of the name that's applied to it, is not fantasy.

If you are trying to say (as I have been thinking, correct me if I'm wrong) that "real" 3-D images have been projected into clear air by lasers, making a visible image like in Star Wars, Star Trek, or similar, then you do not know what the hell you are talking about, plain and simple. You are making a fool of yourself. Yes, the holograms on credit cards are real holograms-- it is your silly science fiction fantasies that are not real holograms-- those are NOT REAL.

"3D holograms" are stored in crystals, and thus store data in 3 dimensions, not in 2 like a holographic film like that used on credit cards. "3D holograms" are NOT free-standing displays of laser light floating in the air-- and they never will be, as I have already explained that only very dangerous, high-energy lasers have visible beam paths in clear air. That is not an engineering issue, that is a fundamental physics issue. Your sci-fi fantasies will never come true. Yes, it is possible to make volumetric displays, but they will always be confined within something-- inside a glass cylinder or sphere, or inside a case with a projector and a spinning mirror, for example. But there will never be a device that you hold in your hand that projects visible, 3D laser holograms.

Let's try to do without name calling, shall we?

I wasn't saying this he is a fool, just that he is acting like one. And that might sound a bit harsh, but he is providing misinformation, and being wrong (not to mention humorless) on the internet!

http://xkcd.com/386/